• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What is wrong with what Steorn is doing?

Who is not biased?

You don't have me on ignore, so you can answer this question.
 
http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-09/092206bad.html#i6

It sounds like they advertised to get independent scientists (not biased skeptical organizations or personalities) to test their product.

The problem is, with thousands of people applying, if they're not honest about their belief in their results, but are instead frauds, they can select the ones most likely to either screw things up, or actually bias it in their favour. Without having a public list of who's volunteered, we have no way of knowing if the people they select are really the best to test their claims.

I mean, you read Randi's Commentaries, right? How many "scientists" has he profiled who accept any and all claims without reservation? I'm sure there's more than 12 of this sort in the list of volunteers. Free energy attracts them like bugs to a flame.

If I was them (and really believed I had something, rather than being a knowing fraud), I'd want the worst (and thus best) skeptics to be on the panel, and I'd want that to be public. That way, if they end up validating my claim, there wouldn't be nearly as many accusations that I had stacked the deck in my own favour. Because, as it is, any positive reports will be critisized in just this way. <---(can I claim that as a prediction for the Challenge? No? Oh, okay....)
 
Your attempted comedy aside, what is wrong with advertising for independent scientists to review a product, and ignoring a challenge by a skeptical organization/personality, known to be 'against' various claims, be negative in commentary, etc.?

It seems like Randi at times is saying 'Do science!... well, except if it means ignoring my challenge'.
 
Your attempted comedy aside, what is wrong with advertising for independent scientists to review a product, and ignoring a challenge by a skeptical organization/personality, known to be 'against' various claims, be negative in commentary, etc.?

It seems like Randi at times is saying 'Do science!... well, except if it means ignoring my challenge'.

[Insert generic quip about T'ai Chi's position to JREF Challenge here.] :D
 
I thinks it's pointless to speculate as to how genuine Steorn's "advertisement" is or isn't until we see which 12 scientists they choose.

Dr. Robert Park... I'd be impressed.

Dr. Gary Schwartz... not so much.
 
Your attempted comedy aside, what is wrong with advertising for independent scientists to review a product, and ignoring a challenge by a skeptical organization/personality, known to be 'against' various claims, be negative in commentary, etc.?

It seems like Randi at times is saying 'Do science!... well, except if it means ignoring my challenge'.

Well, I think I explained "what is wrong": they can bias the selection of the jury any way they want. Without a transparent process, we have no reason to accept that they're really trying to have an honest test of their technology.

So far, everything they've allowed to be published has been characterized by not telling the world anything useful. If they really cared about getting a proper test, they'd publish the whole thing, no reservations, and allow any lab, anywhere, to do whatever tests they wanted to, and let the results fall where they may. If they're correct, the science will show that.

The fact that they don't have the confidence to do this, indicates they're either not as sure as they claim, or they know they're full of it.

No one is insisting that the Challenge is the only way we'd accept their claims. In fact, I'd prefer an open scientific process, as the Challenge is just one test, that they could potentially fake their way through. Not likely, but possible. There's very little chance they could fake out the whole scientific community.
 
I have to honestly say, I have no idea what you mean by this.....Maybe I need to go to bed.

Scientific method plus "belief" = does...not...compute...does...not...compute...
error...error...error...bliep...bliep...bliep...error...error...error...
 
Randi's obviously a person of conviction and courage. He has seen enough of this type of nonsense to call it down with his mystical powers, in advance.:D

IMHO, what Randi is surmising is:
> They advertise for scientists, and will get numerous applicants attracted to the money.
> They can then profile and select the ones they want to put on their panel.
> Will they choose people whose credentials include fourteen published and peer reviewed papers on why their theoretical model is pure nonsense? I doubt it, and I think Randi doubts it.
> Will they choose participants more likely to support their ideas, or even more likely to work extra hard to agree because they money is good? I suspect they will, and I believe Randi has the same suspicions.

He already called it. They will come out with a panel report that says this is the greatest potential device in the history of inventing! And they will then go out and get loads of press, wherever they can, and float an IPO in the FTSE or NASDAQ, and watch the stock go up while they assemble their permanent staff, and then bail out when their own twenty million shares peak at fourteen bucks, and before they have to release their final results showing that the whole thing was bunkum.

Randi didn't say, "Let's get torches and storm the castle." He siad, "Let's see, but I think what I already can predict is......" (I'm paraphrasing - you guys read the article, too.)
 
Scientific method plus "belief" = does...not...compute...does...not...compute...
error...error...error...bliep...bliep...bliep...error...error...error...

Ah, I see, a semantic problem. Comes standard with the English language, I think. Perhaps I should say instead, "confidence in their results".
 
Ah, I see, a semantic problem. Comes standard with the English language, I think. Perhaps I should say instead, "confidence in their results".

Granted.

Semantics pose a problem in every language, Horatius, no doubt. (Try E-Prime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime for further reading http://time-binding.org/about/about-gs.htm or http://www.generalsemantics.org/about.htm )

If you'd please allow me some more nitpicking: "...confidence in the scientific validity of their results..." would satisfy me even more as a statement. Ivory tower, glass house, I know. :)

I very much guess though we sail the same waters, so no offense intended.
 
Your attempted comedy aside, what is wrong with advertising for independent scientists to review a product, and ignoring a challenge by a skeptical organization/personality, known to be 'against' various claims, be negative in commentary, etc.?

It seems like Randi at times is saying 'Do science!... well, except if it means ignoring my challenge'.

So, Victor Zammit's Challenge is valid?

Zammit also chooses his own "scientists" to review the evidence.
 
It sounds like they advertised to get independent scientists (not biased skeptical organizations or personalities) to test their product.
Why did they feel the need to do this? It would have been far cheaper to hire one scientist to test the device, write up a report and get it published.
 
So either Randi is claiming to predict the future re: Steorn's motives, or he is very negative about peoples' right to ignore his skeptical organizations' challenge and proceed via more standard channels of science.

Or both.
 

Back
Top Bottom